Remove old or abandoned 3rd party play modules from module directory #11129
Conversation
|
|
||
| * **Website (docs, sample):** <https://github.com/schaloner/deadbolt-2> | ||
| * **Short description:** Deadbolt is an authorization mechanism for defining access rights to certain controller methods or parts of a view using a simple AND/OR/NOT syntax | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually deadbolt 2 is not dead. There are versions compatibly with Play 2.8 for Scala (https://github.com/schaloner/deadbolt-2-scala) and Java (https://github.com/schaloner/deadbolt-2-java). (I know that because I released that versions since the original author asked me if I want to take over because of lack of time)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Cheers, I had no idea. Let me update this.
|
Just thinking out loud: Would it make sense to not remove that old modules but instead put them into an section e.g. "archived" or "unmaintained". Not sure if that's worth it, but maybe if someone wants to write a module (s)he could do that based on an existing old one, e.g. by forking it. |
Yeah sure, it is a softer approach than just removing them, there are some useful ideas in there that still support ~2.6 or so. I'll add them at the bottom. |
|
@mkurz Absolutely. You read my mind Matthias! I think we should keep links to plugins for users can are going to find them. And if plugins don't maintain, users just can fork them. |
Max-AR
changed the title
|
We should add a note indicating that we don't recommend using the unmaintained libraries, though. In particular I'd be concerned they could have unpatched security vulnerabilities. |
|
@gmethvin What wording would you like under the heading? I was thinking; "These are modules that support older versions of play that are currently unmaintained and may contain security vulnerabilities. These are examples of functionality that have extended play in the past." |
|
How about something like: "These libraries are no longer maintained, so they may not support recent Play releases, and may also contain unpatched bugs and security vulnerabilities. You might find them useful as examples, but you should avoid relying on them unless you fully understand what they are doing and are willing to fork them to fix issues yourself." |
| * **Short description:** Google's HTML Compressor for Play 2. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Memcached Plugin | ||
|
|
||
| * **Website:** <https://github.com/mumoshu/play2-memcached> | ||
| * **Short description:** Provides a memcached based cache implementation | ||
| * **Short description:** Provides a memcached based cache implementation. Support up to play 2.6. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is not correct. play2-memcached does support Play 2.8. In its README it says "For Play 2.6.x and newer..." which just means starting with version 2.6, including 2.7 and 2.8.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for picking that up, I must have misread what the readme was saying. Thanks!
| * **Website:** <https://www.silhouette.rocks/> | ||
| * **Documentation:** <https://www.silhouette.rocks/docs/> | ||
| * **Website:** <https://silhouette.readme.io/> | ||
| * **Documentation:** <https://silhouette.readme.io/docs> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The GitHub repo this website (https://github.com/mohiva/play-silhouette) is archived:
This repository is not longer maintained. All the related resources like the documentation and the forum will be closed.
However:
@honeycomb-cheesecake already is working on a fork (even thought GitHub doesn't show it as one) here: https://github.com/honeycomb-cheesecake/play-silhouette
I think we should replace the entry with the fork.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's right! The new readme.io is where the new documentation is. I've added the github link as well!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah ok, however the GitHub link on the top of the readme page still links to the mohiva repo...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ahh I didn't realize, thanks for pointing that out. I raised an issue
|
Were we happy to merge this? Was there anything else I needed to look at? |
|
@Mergifyio backport master |
❌ No backport have been created
|
|
@Mergifyio backport main |
✅ Backports have been created
|
|
@Mergifyio backport main |
Remove old or abandoned 3rd party play modules from module directory (backport #11129)
Pull Request Checklist
Have you read How to write the perfect pull request?
Have you read through the contributor guidelines?
Have you signed the Lightbend CLA?
Have you referenced any issues you're fixing using commit message keywords?
Have you checked that both Scala and Java APIs are updated?
Have you updated the documentation for both Scala and Java sections?
Have you added tests for any changed functionality?
Purpose
Remove old or abandoned modules from the modules directory.
Anything that had no release or any activity in 4 or more years has been removed from the 2.8 documentation.